Description: The different palette files (soc, sog, sob) are read: * every time when opening the page dialog * and the file read count has doubled since commit d5016b013672056f89f908b6cde38183fad145bb (standard.soc was accessed only 8 times before the commit and after 16 times after). Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open Writer 2. Launch Process Monitor with filter set to Path Contains \standard.soc 3. Start the capture 4. Open Format -> Page menu 5. Stop the capture Actual Results: The different palette files (soc, sog, sob) are read * each time when opening the page dialog. * the read count has doubled to 16x Expected Results: * Should happen only the first time (as before) * and probably only 8 times Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: ~/bibisect-win32-5.1 $ git bisect good b2f23bdb2325c09994a75c2f50eb329b524fea61 is the first bad commit commit b2f23bdb2325c09994a75c2f50eb329b524fea61 Author: Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com> Date: Sat Nov 14 03:24:27 2015 -0800 source d5016b013672056f89f908b6cde38183fad145bb source d5016b013672056f89f908b6cde38183fad145bb :040000 040000 0281ea694e8e0c8bc632e7658c1d21564c103b4a d6111d57fdc7f91d5c8e4a5ebd18809d1bc83085 M instdir ~/bibisect-win32-5.1 $ git bisect log # bad: [05d11632892a322664fb52bac90b2598b7fb7544] source 5616d22b57a9a5e57d545e912e029162a230829b # good: [c1efd324c6ad448ac9edb030dc9738b9e6899e4d] source ab465b90f6c6da5595393a0ba73f33a1e71a2b65 git bisect start 'origin/master' 'oldest' # good: [97526ab777da7e58ce283c05498262ecdd4d6f7f] source 4ea70f87f7a2b61eda6e5ab1f48debf6fcfadc1f git bisect good 97526ab777da7e58ce283c05498262ecdd4d6f7f # good: [86fee7ded76d9c2756ccab6aef160a2d7fab0ab6] source 1b62841b1859ae3443e2bf1ebe99ec3d6afb6cc2 git bisect good 86fee7ded76d9c2756ccab6aef160a2d7fab0ab6 # good: [11864a7db429a57aeea021e0b3f1fb1412282d32] source e5b721a14c1c8e5261a70588b30353cbb5bd55c6 git bisect good 11864a7db429a57aeea021e0b3f1fb1412282d32 # bad: [7d52a87c0aa24498584ec522705cfae3a3a5a038] source 479df22d0b4b0e0393fcf621e7380b38415bcef8 git bisect bad 7d52a87c0aa24498584ec522705cfae3a3a5a038 # bad: [24f34e7d5452bbbda3ab10f38dffd8330bd3356a] source 5140fe150b2962f2973bd07e770df46fee7ab25d git bisect bad 24f34e7d5452bbbda3ab10f38dffd8330bd3356a # good: [5c46c3cd0a5a5a62b016e818b4edda69bfedfe68] source 318c3a48c66dd4ceba801ef410f89b8bf900d5c7 git bisect good 5c46c3cd0a5a5a62b016e818b4edda69bfedfe68 # good: [c5c69ccfd093e2fc54caed8f0a19634da970d5df] source 1266429e91a56bcce59a7b98523e8edb8b22ed18 git bisect good c5c69ccfd093e2fc54caed8f0a19634da970d5df # good: [30efef4f23a1eef8f6241d18ebebd235420b8d04] source 58d8fa1105f5a259111c1cbafc54ff1586d2e24c git bisect good 30efef4f23a1eef8f6241d18ebebd235420b8d04 # good: [4121cb5f569c8201f194814beea05efeb7786edf] source 0bf24b19c7618ee83f88aa9364f68a4db1d2c04d git bisect good 4121cb5f569c8201f194814beea05efeb7786edf # good: [6d4829ca8ba586b22610cff9f018d0363e9cce17] source e3a8d361f71cad0b8a0344f9525b62119fdf1004 git bisect good 6d4829ca8ba586b22610cff9f018d0363e9cce17 # good: [436b8c29f25109e02a0459cef89b5f397fbc80a7] source 0ab6b1fc6e84b4f5f3a9c0b93b999aa320a70a0e git bisect good 436b8c29f25109e02a0459cef89b5f397fbc80a7 # good: [84262bdc425cb6104cf126ce3ad9b2adf855deb8] source f723a62cb5e0e37e56f341f4641ab3fd05bbc8dd git bisect good 84262bdc425cb6104cf126ce3ad9b2adf855deb8 # bad: [b2f23bdb2325c09994a75c2f50eb329b524fea61] source d5016b013672056f89f908b6cde38183fad145bb git bisect bad b2f23bdb2325c09994a75c2f50eb329b524fea61 # good: [d1084a4bae80a6ad1cc597c4ea971b5c1cdc286d] source cc77a2a8f3447b02d33a224df627f6500adc158f git bisect good d1084a4bae80a6ad1cc597c4ea971b5c1cdc286d # first bad commit: [b2f23bdb2325c09994a75c2f50eb329b524fea61] source d5016b013672056f89f908b6cde38183fad145bb User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
I can confirm with LO 5.4.2.2, and also checked the bibisect result commit. The number of standard.soc accesses also increased between the two, I assume because of bug 112532.
Regression introduced by: author Michael Stahl <mstahl@redhat.com> 2015-11-12 21:02:20 (GMT) committer Michael Stahl <mstahl@redhat.com> 2015-11-13 10:03:09 (GMT) commit d5016b013672056f89f908b6cde38183fad145bb (patch) tree 584efcdf260fc38ba5348ba40521fadb1b3cc9ac parent cc77a2a8f3447b02d33a224df627f6500adc158f (diff) svx: loplugin:badstatics Change-Id: Ief31d8153fdbf91cdd29df5ac7801bd88a98542e Adding Cc: to Michael Stahl
Michael: just for curiosity what are criteria for lo:badstatics? Is there some doc (even just some lines)? In the case of this bugtracker, what may be done here? (put something else static, a singleton, other?) BTW, digging on the stack of callers, I noticed that XPropertyList::CreatePropertyList is declared static (see https://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/include/svx/xtable.hxx#228) but implemented not static, (see https://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/svx/source/xoutdev/xtable.cxx#331), is it ok?
Found this note: "wrote a "badstatics" clang plugin to find problematic global variables referencing VCL objects that may cause crashes on shutdown and fixed a bunch of those" https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UnderTheHood/5.1 I still don't understand, though. (In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #3) > BTW, digging on the stack of callers, I noticed that > XPropertyList::CreatePropertyList is declared static (see > https://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/include/svx/xtable.hxx#228) but > implemented not static, (see > https://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/svx/source/xoutdev/xtable. > cxx#331), is it ok? Seems to be fine, the static keyword is only required at declaration.
Let me add Michael's comments from IRC here: <mst_> bearon: XColorList derives from XPropertyList which has std::vector< std::unique_ptr<XPropertyEntry> > and XPropertyEntry has "Bitmap maUiBitmap;" <mst_>: bearon: btw badstatics is currently far too lenient, it should really flag anything with a user-defined dtor, but ENOTIME Maybe the solution would be to use a different structure for color lists?
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
Dear Telesto, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
Still observable in Version: 7.4.0.0.alpha0+ (x64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: ccbd2b0c663fa19be5301f0ea8ac74caa055fe47 CPU threads: 14; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19042; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: hu-HU (hu_HU); UI: en-US Calc: threaded
the practical impact of this for real users is in doubt, likely there are a lot of more important problems...